|
John Dough posted:If Disney is smart, they probably figure that a lawsuit gives way too much free publicity to a lovely movie that will otherwise be forgotten. Yeah I'm sure asylum thinks any added publicity would be the goal so Disney should just ignore them. Who knows.
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
axleblaze posted:I'm pretty sure you could pretty easily argue that the term "once upon a time" as applied to fairy tale princesses is something so common that you can't really claim copyright on it like that. Copyright? No, it's long out of copyright. Trademark, on the other hand, you absolutely can. No one else can produce a show titled "Once Upon a Time" because Disney holds that trademark. And because the main purpose of trademarks is prevent people from using a name or logo or something along those lines to try to cause confusion (like, say, making a lovely movie using it) it's not impossible that Disney will sue. Asylum tends to toe the line on trademark infringement really closely and they've been slapped down a few times because of it. The description, though lovely, is probably on the right side of things. The title, on the other hand, I'd expect them to have a much harder time defending in court. And using the "Avengers" name like that is bad enough that I think Disney will (and should) challenge it. (For Christmas all I really want is for nerds on the Internet to learn the difference between copyright and trademark.) muscles like this? posted:while Disney doesn't own the word "Avengers" They do: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=4806:x40loh.3.62 (plus about thirty other trademarks applying it to just about anything you could slap the word "Avengers" on). [There you go, found the trademark that's specific to films.] Random Stranger fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
John Water is making a G-rated version of Pink Flamingos with an all-kid cast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:They do:
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Payndz posted:Except in the UK, where they had to use the rather clumsy title Marvel's Avengers Assemble because of the 1960s TV series The Avengers. Which is funny since I haven't spoken to a single Brit who calls it that. They've all just called it The Avengers. Which means that whole thing was done just to appease impotent lawyers and literally no one else cared.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
I kind of like the Avengers Assemble title, as it fits into the naming convention for Avengers Age of Ultron more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
In my country The Avengers TV show had a supremely clumsy title ("Mit Schirm, Charme und Melone" = "With umbrella, charm and bowler hat", what the gently caress Germany) and I have no idea whether that was due to trademark shenanigans, but I'd like to think it was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:In my country The Avengers TV show had a supremely clumsy title ("Mit Schirm, Charme und Melone" = "With umbrella, charm and bowler hat", what the gently caress Germany) and I have no idea whether that was due to trademark shenanigans, but I'd like to think it was. That's actually a pretty awesome name.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Didn't they start doing something different with the British Avengers show recently?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
precision posted:Unless the film has like a four way lesbian orgy I doubt Disney will care enough to sue anyway. And Alan Moore awakes from his slumber to call a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:A Serbian princess. It basically just means she gets first dibs when the cargo container of clearance blue jeans arrives from America. What about the Adidas track suits? Or are those reserved for the Crown Prince?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Payndz posted:Except in the UK, where they had to use the rather clumsy title Marvel's Avengers Assemble because of the 1960s TV series The Avengers. Do they still call it "Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles" there? PriorMarcus posted:I kind of like the Avengers Assemble title, as it fits into the naming convention for Avengers Age of Ultron more. Oddly, that's also the name of the cartoon series they made in the US following the movie. muscles like this? posted:Didn't they start doing something different with the British Avengers show recently? The last I remember anyone ever talking about it was that movie with Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman in 1998. raditts fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
raditts posted:Do they still call it "Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles" there? One hopes that racism towards ninjas are all but gone now. Or does the BNP object to them on principle of something? Unless Avengers Grimm is really crazy, it may not really match the actual Once Upon A Time where Rumplestiltskin has fangirls, Snow White and Prince Charming are younger than their adult daughter, and "fairy tales" includes characters from Frozen (as in the Disney movie, not the Snow Queen story), Frankenstein, and the sarlacc from Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:One hopes that racism towards ninjas are all but gone now. Or does the BNP object to them on principle of something? Ok. I knew about everything up to the sarlacc. What's the deal with that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:Ok. I knew about everything up to the sarlacc. What's the deal with that? That was in the Wonderland spinoff (or miniseries). Alice had wishes given to her by a genie (her boyfriend) and Jafar (from Aladdin) was discussing with the Queen of Hearts on how to make Alice use up those wishes. They were flipping through a book looking for monsters they can use and the Queen suggested using the sarlacc (they ended up picking the Jabberwock). You get a glimpse of the sarlacc page and there appears to be an illustration that did sort of look like a sarlacc's body.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
precision posted:Unless the film has like a four way lesbian orgy I doubt Disney will care enough to sue anyway. They sued a kindergarden for painting Mickey on their wall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:They sued a kindergarden for painting Mickey on their wall. In their defense, it was an exceptionally lewd painting of Mickey.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:They sued a kindergarden for painting Mickey on their wall. That was decades ago and they learned a lot after it blew up in their faces. Today's Disney is the Disney that not only let Escape From Tomorrow happen but even reference it in their parks guide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Where a lot of the more silly intellectual property lawsuits seem to come from is that if you don't protect your copyright in all instances its violated anytime you knowingly didn't move to protect can be used against you if you try and protect it in future lawsuits. Although the Disney lawyers might consider this to dissimilar to be an issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Where a lot of the more silly intellectual property lawsuits seem to come from is that if you don't protect your copyright in all instances its violated anytime you knowingly didn't move to protect can be used against you if you try and protect it in future lawsuits. Although the Disney lawyers might consider this to dissimilar to be an issue. This is not true of copyright. Copyright is always in place no matter how well or often you defend it. Trademark, on the other hand, can be taken way if it's not defended.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Along similar lines (trademark), imagine how many cut-rate daycare centers have bootleg Mickeys on their walls. As Disney, do you want that in the background of a perp walk on the 5 o'clock news?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Do you want a first rate Mickey in that case either?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Yeah I'd rather have the perp walked by Macky Moose
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What about the Adidas track suits? Or are those reserved for the Crown Prince? Those are for the royal guard, you can see them squatting by the throne.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Apparently Google tried to trademark the word "glass", because King trademarking "candy" went so well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
precision posted:Apparently Google tried to trademark the word "glass", because King trademarking "candy" went so well. Trademarks are generally industry specific anyway, like Microsoft isn't going to sue your local window washer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Yeah, Google trademarking Glass is just so Samsung can't come out with their own one and call it Samsung Glass or Apple can't call theirs Apple Glass.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Who's ready for another chapter of the Dustin Diamond Saved by the Bell biopic?? http://fox6now.com/2014/12/26/dustin-diamond-actor-who-played-screech-on-saved-by-the-bell-arrested-in-ozaukee-co/
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Yodzilla posted:Who's ready for another chapter of the Dustin Diamond Saved by the Bell biopic?? http://fox6now.com/2014/12/26/dustin-diamond-actor-who-played-screech-on-saved-by-the-bell-arrested-in-ozaukee-co/ Classy, a Christmas stabbing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:Yeah, Google trademarking Glass is just so Samsung can't come out with their own one and call it Samsung Glass or Apple can't call theirs Apple Glass. Oh come on, as if Apple wouldn't sell their copy of Google Glass as the Eye-Phones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Google should come out with and not trademark a product called Fart just to see what Apple does.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
precision posted:Apparently Google tried to trademark the word "glass", because King trademarking "candy" went so well. And some computer company trademarked the word "apple". Can you believe that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:And some computer company trademarked the word "apple". Can you believe that? Apple actually got sued by whoever represents The Beatles now because they got involved in selling music.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Bob Orci melts down at fans on a message board and says he won't be writing the Star Trek 3 script: http://badassdigest.com/2014/12/26/star-trek-3-coming-july-2016-without-a-bob-orci-script/
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Corek posted:Bob Orci melts down at fans on a message board and says he won't be writing the Star Trek 3 script: Man, whoever wrote that article really seems to have it out for Orci.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Corek posted:Bob Orci melts down at fans on a message board Hasn't he done this a bunch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:Man, whoever wrote that article really seems to have it out for Orci. Devin Faraci basically blew a gasket about the Khan thing from Into Darkness and he's made it his life's work to end Orci and all that he loves, more or less. He refuses to accept that it was Lindelof who forced the Khan insertion into the script, for example -- for him, everything bad comes from Orci. I mean, I was happy as anyone to see anyone else in the director's seat, but Faraci for whatever reason really hates his guts. But then again, this is the same guy who named his website "Badass Digest" and looks ... well, exactly how you'd expect him to look. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Corek posted:Bob Orci melts down at fans on a message board and says he won't be writing the Star Trek 3 script: This is excellent news.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
I like BAD and Devin, but sometimes I don't agree or care about his nerdy poo poo. I don't like Star Trek except for JJ's Trek. He hates them, and doesn't like Abrams either. Before the Force Awakens trailer came out, every post about Star Wars was passive aggressive as gently caress bitching about how JJ ruins everything. Star Trek deserved JJ Abrams.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
Before the Abrams movies came out, Star Trek had gotten so far up its own rear end it was like some sort of ouroboros of lovely tepid writing. Now, at least, they're lovely funny writing with enough action and sex appeal to gloss over how dumb they are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 01:55
|
|
